Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison

Could be paroled from military prison as soon as 2021.

US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison this morning after being convicted of 20 counts related to his leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, which consisted mostly of diplomatic cables. (He escaped conviction on the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy.") In addition, he will also forfeit all of his pay and allowances, have his rank reduced to private, and be dishonorably discharged.

A reporter present at the hearing said that Manning showed no reaction as the sentence was read, but audible gasps came from spectators in the court gallery. As Manning was escorted from the courtroom by armed guards, a small group of supporters shouted, "We'll keep fighting for you, Bradley!" and "You're our hero!"

The sentence will no doubt be a disappointment to Army prosecutors who wanted a stiffer sentence. Indeed, during closing arguments on Tuesday, prosecutors requested a sentence of at least 60 years. Prosecutor Capt. Joe Morrow told the court that "there may not be a soldier in the history of the Army who displayed such extreme disregard" for his mission.

Defense lawyer David Coombs requested a term of less than 25 years, arguing that Manning had "pure intentions" and "truly, genuinely believed that this information could make a difference."

In February, Manning told the court that Americans needed to know the "true costs of war" and he "felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves mired in year after year," he testified.

Manning will receive credit for the over three-and-a-half years he has spent in custody awaiting trial. That figure includes 112 days of credit for being subject to harsh treatment. During one period of his pretrial incarceration, Manning's clothing was confiscated every night, and he was then forced to stand for inspection by guards while naked. He was also prevented from sleeping between 5am and 8pm and not allowed to have sheets on his bed. Col. Denise Lind, the judge who presided over the trial, ruled during a pretrial hearing that his sentence would be reduced to account for his abusive incarceration conditions.

The Washington Postreports that Manning will need to serve one-third of his sentence before being eligible for parole, meaning that he could be released as soon as 2021, given credit for time served.

And is that 35 years AFTER the time taken off for the pre-trial abuse he suffered for months in the brig? You know the violations of the UMCJ on NJD, and so on, that had (surprise surprise) no-one else punished.

From what I have heard, military prison is not like regular prison in that it usually involves a lot of manual labor. Imagine spending 35 years breaking big rocks into little rocks. Also I have heard that under the UCMJ there are no Constitutional protections. So expect the cruel and unusual punishment to commence.

Edit: Just parroting what I had heard from fellow soldiers.

Further edit: I know this is anecdotal but I can point to a wiki entry or to the actual Constitution all day long... It does not mean it is actually followed in practice. Just because the rule of law is one thing... in practice means something entirely different. When I hear reports of something different being followed and having never been to military prison, I tend to give them some credibility.

The prosecution tried to assert that an Afghanistan citizen had died as a result of the leak.Only under cross examination did the witness admit that the source for that info was the Taliban and that his (the US Army) own research had shown that no one had died as a result.

Given that Army tried to lie about the extent of the harm caused by the leak until they were forced to admit under oath that was not credible, how could the punishment they sought be taken seriously?

FTA: The Washington Post reports that Manning will need to serve one-third of his sentence before being eligible for parole, meaning that he could be released as soon as 2022, given credit for time served.

Just out of curiosity - were the "collateral murder" people punished for their actions? If so, how were they punished?

Maybe that can put this ridiculous story in perspective.

They were not punished because they had intel that there were insurgents in the area, and they saw weapons. Iraq 2007 was a hairy time the ROE was far tighter than it was during the 2003-2006 area but there was still plenty of ish going on. If you have seen the video and listen to the pilots, they see AK's and an RPG... The RPG right there gives them all they need to engage as it is a purely offensive weapon, but the AK's do as well.

I find the extremely long sentences that the US hands out to be generally excessive.

A 10 year sentence would have been easily sufficient. Think back over 10 years of your life and imagine that all of that time was lost because you were locked up. That length of sentence sends the same message without completely destroying a person's life.

A 35 year sentence means that Bradley Manning's life is now pretty much wasted. When he's released, he'll have no money, no job, no home, few friends left.

It's very sad.

For crimes where people are actually hurt or killed, I can appreciate a need to make sure that justice is done and that the public are kept safe. This isn't one of those situations.

The US justice system isn't about restorative justice. It's about revenge.

From what I have heard, military prison is not like regular prison in that it usually involves a lot of manual labor. Imagine spending 35 years breaking big rocks into little rocks. Also I have heard that under the UCMJ there are no Constitutional protections. So expect the cruel and unusual punishment to commence.

Not true in either case. The US Disciplinary Barracks, from what I understand, is run no differently than any other military confinement facility. It is not Alabama chain gangs and the like.

Furthermore, the UCMJ is subject to the Constitution. Yes, there are some differences between regular criminal law and US military law, but they're minor. At the end of the day, US military justice is (depending on your opinion) no different than that of regular civilian courts.

Could you at least have bothered to look at a Wikipedia article before throwing out broad, unfounded assumptions?

And is that 35 years AFTER the time taken off for the pre-trial abuse he suffered for months in the brig? You know the violations of the UMCJ on NJD, and so on, that had (surprise surprise) no-one else punished.

I find the extremely long sentences that the US hands out to be generally excessive.

A 10 year sentence would have been easily sufficient. Think back over 10 years of your life and imagine that all of that time was lost because you were locked up. That length of sentence sends the same message without completely destroying a person's life.

The "pure intentions" argument only works for the people who gave the okay for the collateral murder strike that killed innocent civilians and Rueter's reporters.

False equivalence. War zones are chaotic and therefore normal liability for conduct is relaxed. The equivalent war zone situation would be Sgt. Robert Bales, who left his base in the middle of the night and went on a civilan shooting spree. Alternatively, an appropriate example would be if Manning uploaded the files to a public server accidentally during a crisis.

Accidents are usually forgivable (though not without consequences). Premeditated criminal actions are not.

So releasing documents that exposed government abuse and hypocrisy and that for the most part shouldn't have been classified gets you as much time as murder?

Murders can serve a lot less than 35 years.

They can also serve more. It depends on context, like the number of people murdered and the reason why. Manning didn't just leak one document to expose an incident (which usually gets someone fired, not prosecuted), he dumped A LOT of data about a lot of things indiscriminately. It took time and wasn't done in the heat of a specific argument. Thus, it was always likely he'd get a longer sentence than the bare minimum.

From what I have heard, military prison is not like regular prison in that it usually involves a lot of manual labor. Imagine spending 35 years breaking big rocks into little rocks. Also I have heard that under the UCMJ there are no Constitutional protections. So expect the cruel and unusual punishment to commence.

That's not true.

First of all they do have televisions, game rooms, weight rooms, libraries, work details, an exercise yard, and classes, in military prison facilities. Generally, the food is good. Medical/dental care is available and given when its needed, plus prisoners get something most Americans don't get routinely and that's physicals plus ongoing care for medical issues. Manual labor is the same manual labor that any other non-prisoner military person could be assigned to do, its just that prisoners are a ready source of work force for those, for example, prisoners work in the dining hall or cleaning things or maintenance labor. Non-violent military inmates are usually kept at medium custody level. If he were violent then his sentence would involve hard labor which is different from those in medium custody level. Yes, prisoners have constitutional protections, just not all of them like, for example, voting, however, they are subject to "reasonable" search and seizure at any time for anything the same as prisoners in regular prisons are subject to, plus the military prisoner obviously doesn't have the freedom regular people have due to, you know, being a prisoner in prison for a crime. Fights and attacks in regular military prisons are rare because its more of a structured environment and they are dealt with swiftly and decidedly by prison authority. No, he is not going to spend 35 years breaking big rocks into little rocks. If he wants to do so he will be able to earn a college degree with full expense paid by the U.S. Government (the tax payers) which is something a lot of Americans don't have the luxury of.

"The Washington Post reports that Manning will need to serve one-third of his sentence before being eligible for parole, meaning that he could be released as soon as 2022, given credit for time served."

This is what you get for blowing the whistle on the dirty little (and not so little) secrets and abuses?

No more preaching to the world from the moral high ground, America. Welcome to the amoral low ground.

No, this is what you get for screwing around with classified material. This is an important distinction that needs to be made that a lot of people are (in some cases, conveniently) forgetting: he didn't whistleblow. He didn't go to his chaplain or his chain of command and follow procedure. He "took matters in his own hands" (because that's never a recipe for disaster.)

Was it excessive? In my opinion, yes. Did it bring to light important matters that would have been buried? Yes. But was he a whistleblower? No.

In February, Manning told the court that Americans neeI felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves mired in year after year," he testified.

Can you clear up the typo here? I hate being 'that guy' but I'm really not sure what word or words belong around 'neel felt'.

FTA: The Washington Post reports that Manning will need to serve one-third of his sentence before being eligible for parole, meaning that he could be released as soon as 2022, given credit for time served.